Aemilius wrote:Over-complicating things ? Unnecessary? The fact is that there is history. History according to dharma. History according to different ideologies. History according to different states, history according to their opposing national interests. You can't avoid the existence of history, the existence of ideologies etc... I just tried to be clear and simple. In explaining how the idea of possession, idea of ownership, idea of I and mine gradually take form, gradually develop.

That's fine, but we're discussing what constitutes karma based on how and why it works.

Karma doesn't only function if the ideas are valid or present in the intellect, as you seem to say in the case of these monkeys who may not have as developed of an idea of ownership etc. as we humans.

Such ideas are never valid and not always present, yet confused beings still create karma and suffer the consequences.

The main point is that the intellectual capacity or development of such ideas of possession etc. will only tone the color of the karma that is created. But the creation of karma itself is affiliated with the defiled manas, which is always accompanied by the aforementioned passions for selfhood.

It is a much deeper problem than the gradual formation of intellectual ideas. It is functioning even in animals who have very dull intellects.

This is explained in Vasubandhu's Karma-siddhi-prakaraṇa which you cited as a reference. This will be a much more relevant text to the topic at hand (howkarma works).

The Pali Sutta sources you cite will only speak to the point of intellectual mind, nothing deeper. It therefore teaches the law of karma in principle, but not precisely how or why karma works. It is suggested to śrāvaka not to think too much about how karma works because that will just drive them crazy. Hīnayāna teachings only cover the first six consciousnesses, and don't reveal the manas and ālāya. Therefore the working of karma is not spoken in great detail, only in principle.

Following the line of thought in Karmasiddhiprakarana one can say that movement of hand does not constitute action nor create karma. Picking an apple is a movement of hand, how does karma come into the picture? In your view ?

Dexing wrote:That's fine, but we're discussing what constitutes karma based on how and why it works.

Karma doesn't only function if the ideas are valid or present in the intellect, as you seem to say in the case of these monkeys who may not have as developed of an idea of ownership etc. as we humans.

Such ideas are never valid and not always present, yet confused beings still create karma and suffer the consequences.

The main point is that the intellectual capacity or development of such ideas of possession etc. will only tone the color of the karma that is created. But the creation of karma itself is affiliated with the defiled manas, which is always accompanied by the aforementioned passions for selfhood.

It is a much deeper problem than the gradual formation of intellectual ideas. It is functioning even in animals who have very dull intellects.

This is explained in Vasubandhu's Karma-siddhi-prakaraṇa which you cited as a reference. This will be a much more relevant text to the topic at hand (howkarma works).

The Pali Sutta sources you cite will only speak to the point of intellectual mind, nothing deeper. It therefore teaches the law of karma in principle, but not precisely how or why karma works. It is suggested to śrāvaka not to think too much about how karma works because that will just drive them crazy. Hīnayāna teachings only cover the first six consciousnesses, and don't reveal the manas and ālāya. Therefore the working of karma is not spoken in great detail, only in principle.

Aemilius wrote:Following the line of thought in Karmasiddhiprakarana one can say that movement of hand does not constitute action nor create karma. Picking an apple is a movement of hand, how does karma come into the picture? In your view ?

The point of the text is to say that there can be no movement of the hand without first an impulse, that impulse as one of the mental skandhas is already action. That action arises in the defiled manas which is always associated with the passions for selfhood.

Therefore, the movement of the hand is not the hand's movement. Bodily-action is not bodily-action, but so-named for the way it is perceived. Otherwise a corpse could move its hand if action belonged to the body.

In the sentient being action is the initial volitional impulse arising from manas which is perceived externally and conventionally referred to as bodily-action, etc..

Furthermore, any action arising from the defiled manas will necessarily give rise to karmic retribution. And since manas is always associated with passions for selfhood, the question of karma rest solely on the grasping of ātman which at a deep level is manas clinging to ālaya as an inner self, which doesn't rely on any degree of intellectual grasping at objects.

In fact, even in the deep dreamless sleeping state, fainting, or samādhi of cessation, the first six consciousness are no longer functioning. That means there is no level of intellectual grasping taking place. But what holds the continuity of karma and retribution is the manas and ālaya simultaneously sustaining each other.

So what constitutes karma of stealing, for example, is not the movement of the hand, but the impulse that propels the hand to take, arising from manas with its passions for selfhood.

It is only a convenient speech to speak of bodily-action, or "karma committed by the body", taught simply for the sake of śrāvaka to whom the Buddha did not reveal deeper consciousnesses such as ālaya, for fear they would mistake it for a self.

What you are saying is by and large OK, but I don't understand why you have to say that there is clinging without objects (?), or clinging without intellectual understanding that objects are objects (??). Do you mean to put forward some isolationist view ? That there is clinging without consciousness of an outer world ?? Why would the hand move at all (to grasp at something imaginary or real) if there is no understanding of objects??

In the teaching of the 12 links of dependent arising it is said that there are three kinds of grasping ( at sense experience, at intellectual views and at existence/nonexistence). The second kind of grasping continues in the state of samadhi, this has been explained numerous times.

Dexing wrote:

Aemilius wrote:Following the line of thought in Karmasiddhiprakarana one can say that movement of hand does not constitute action nor create karma. Picking an apple is a movement of hand, how does karma come into the picture? In your view ?

The point of the text is to say that there can be no movement of the hand without first an impulse, that impulse as one of the mental skandhas is already action. That action arises in the defiled manas which is always associated with the passions for selfhood.

Therefore, the movement of the hand is not the hand's movement. Bodily-action is not bodily-action, but so-named for the way it is perceived. Otherwise a corpse could move its hand if action belonged to the body.

In the sentient being action is the initial volitional impulse arising from manas which is perceived externally and conventionally referred to as bodily-action, etc..

Furthermore, any action arising from the defiled manas will necessarily give rise to karmic retribution. And since manas is always associated with passions for selfhood, the question of karma rest solely on the grasping of ātman which at a deep level is manas clinging to ālaya as an inner self, which doesn't rely on any degree of intellectual grasping at objects.

In fact, even in the deep dreamless sleeping state, fainting, or samādhi of cessation, the first six consciousness are no longer functioning. That means there is no level of intellectual grasping taking place. But what holds the continuity of karma and retribution is the manas and ālaya simultaneously sustaining each other.

So what constitutes karma of stealing, for example, is not the movement of the hand, but the impulse that propels the hand to take, arising from manas with its passions for selfhood.

It is only a convenient speech to speak of bodily-action, or "karma committed by the body", taught simply for the sake of śrāvaka to whom the Buddha did not reveal deeper consciousnesses such as ālaya, for fear they would mistake it for a self.

Aemilius wrote:What you are saying is by and large OK, but I don't understand why you have to say that there is clinging without objects (?), or clinging without intellectual understanding that objects are objects (??).

I didn't say there is either...

I said intellectual clinging to objects, which is the realm of the intellect, and the first six consciousnesses and their objects.

This is brought up because you assert that a monkey must have a sense of ownership to be guilty of the karma of stealing. Whereas I have stated that karma is working at a much deeper level than the intellect, and requires no such sense to create retribution.

That there is clinging without consciousness of an outer world ??

What I was referring to was the grasping of manas to ālaya as its object, as an inner self. This grasping takes place at a deeper level than the intellect, the first six consciousnesses and their objects.

It is that which accounts for the continuity of consciousness-streams through states of dreamless sleep, fainting, samādhi of cessation, etc.. in which the first six consciousnesses do not function.

Why would the hand move at all (to grasp at something imaginary or real) if there is no understanding of objects??

You've misunderstood the statement. Read above.

In the teaching of the 12 links of dependent arising it is said that there are three kinds of grasping ( at sense experience, at intellectual views and at existence/nonexistence). The second kind of grasping continues in the state of samadhi, this has been explained numerous times.

Know that there are different states of samādhi. What I speak of is the samādhi of cessation in which all of the first six consciousness are completely non-functioning, as in dreamless sleep, fainting, coma, etc..

Sense experience and intellectual views are completely cut off in such states. Yet manas is still grasping ālaya as its object, which accounts for karma and ālaya as consciousness as retribution, accounting for continuance of consciousness-streams upon waking up from such states or being reborn.

The point with saying all of this is to say that karma doesn't rely on intellectual understanding, as that can be completely shut off. So your case about the monkeys not having such an intellectual idea of ownership, or the gradual development of such an intellectual sense really doesn't make a difference.

Karma is impulses as actions of manas with its passions for selfhood. So the karma of stealing depends on the deep passion for selfhood, not on any concept of ownership developed on an intellectual level, although that will certainly color karma.

So no, monkeys are not exempt because they don't have a concept of ownership. They have manas which is always accompanied by the passions for selfhood, and from which come the impulses that are already actions and manifest as perceived "bodily-action", etc., although it is all action of manas.

As Vasubandhu explains, in the first six consciousnesses, if the eyes just see and the ears just hear, that is only functioning and is not action resulting in retribution, which is why a Buddha can function properly without creating karma. Karma is action of manas which such beings have completely destroyed.

Aemilius wrote:What you are saying is by and large OK, but I don't understand why you have to say that there is clinging without objects (?), or clinging without intellectual understanding that objects are objects (??).

I didn't say there is either...

I said intellectual clinging to objects, which is the realm of the intellect, and the first six consciousnesses and their objects.

This is brought up because you assert that a monkey must have a sense of ownership to be guilty of the karma of stealing. Whereas I have stated that karma is working at a much deeper level than the intellect, and requires no such sense to create retribution.

That there is clinging without consciousness of an outer world ??

What I was referring to was the grasping of manas to ālaya as its object, as an inner self. This grasping takes place at a deeper level than the intellect, the first six consciousnesses and their objects.

It is that which accounts for the continuity of consciousness-streams through states of dreamless sleep, fainting, samādhi of cessation, etc.. in which the first six consciousnesses do not function.

Why would the hand move at all (to grasp at something imaginary or real) if there is no understanding of objects??

You've misunderstood the statement. Read above.

In the teaching of the 12 links of dependent arising it is said that there are three kinds of grasping ( at sense experience, at intellectual views and at existence/nonexistence). The second kind of grasping continues in the state of samadhi, this has been explained numerous times.

Know that there are different states of samādhi. What I speak of is the samādhi of cessation in which all of the first six consciousness are completely non-functioning, as in dreamless sleep, fainting, coma, etc..

Sense experience and intellectual views are completely cut off in such states. Yet manas is still grasping ālaya as its object, which accounts for karma and ālaya as consciousness as retribution, accounting for continuance of consciousness-streams upon waking up from such states or being reborn.

The point with saying all of this is to say that karma doesn't rely on intellectual understanding, as that can be completely shut off. So your case about the monkeys not having such an intellectual idea of ownership, or the gradual development of such an intellectual sense really doesn't make a difference.

Karma is impulses as actions of manas with its passions for selfhood. So the karma of stealing depends on the deep passion for selfhood, not on any concept of ownership developed on an intellectual level, although that will certainly color karma.

So no, monkeys are not exempt because they don't have a concept of ownership. They have manas which is always accompanied by the passions for selfhood, and from which come the impulses that are already actions and manifest as perceived "bodily-action", etc., although it is all action of manas.

As Vasubandhu explains, in the first six consciousnesses, if the eyes just see and the ears just hear, that is only functioning and is not action resulting in retribution, which is why a Buddha can function properly without creating karma. Karma is action of manas which such beings have completely destroyed.

You are misrepresenting karma, grasping at self is only one level of karma. I have also said that there is division into self and other, which is the basis of action. You can't have self without other, i.e. the non-self. I do think that monkeys, and humanity in earlier phases of history, do have an idea of possession, but it is different from the modern concept of ownership. The question is do human laws represent karma, in some way, or are they karmically neutral? You have defined "stealing" in such a way that it includes taking a fruit in a primal forest, at a period when there never was the idea that some person could claim to "posses" the nature, which is primordially beyond being "owned" by some deluded person!

Passions for selfhood in the deeper sense of manas grasping ālaya taking place in the "subconscious" is what accounts for the sustaining of manas, as ālaya regurgitates those habit energies.

Manas is responsible for all types of karma as impulsive actions arise from there. Break through the grasping of selfhood and associated passions and you stop creating all types of karma as manas is destroyed, as with the state of an arhat.

Aemilius wrote:You are misrepresenting karma, grasping at self is only one level of karma.

Dexing wrote:Passions for selfhood in the deeper sense of manas grasping ālaya taking place in the "subconscious" is what accounts for the sustaining of manas, as ālaya regurgitates those habit energies.

Manas is responsible for all types of karma as impulsive actions arise from there. Break through the grasping of selfhood and associated passions and you stop creating all types of karma as manas is destroyed, as with the state of an arhat.

Aemilius wrote:You are misrepresenting karma, grasping at self is only one level of karma.

A reread of Vasubandhu's text is in order.

How about the three kinds of grasping in the 12 links? They describe the process of karmic becoming more in detail, they describe how a consciousness-stream can become existent in the Form realms, in four Dhyana realms and in the Formless realms, and also in the subcategories of those realms, which includes 100 000 different species of animals! The varieties in the three kinds of grasping have to be most varied, don't they?? That implies that grasping at views will have a decisive effect in the process of becoming, I would venture to say. Mere grasping at self cannot be responsible for the wide spectrum of beings.

Aemilius wrote:Mere grasping at self cannot be responsible for the wide spectrum of beings.

As stated, karmic action is impulse which arises from manas. What sustains manas at the deepest levels is clinging to ālaya as an inner self. And in turn what sustains that is the habit energy regurgitated from ālaya. The passions for selfhood of manas give rise to all sorts of discriminations of "inner" and "outer" perceptions. It is the discriminative consciousness responsible for all sorts of deluded views and actions. Therefore, all views and actions can be returned to manas with its grasping at ālaya as self. If this is undone (self-grasping abandoned) then there can no longer be passions and views. Manas is forever destroyed and replaced with Wisdom of Equality.

Aemilius wrote:Mere grasping at self cannot be responsible for the wide spectrum of beings.

As stated, karmic action is impulse which arises from manas. What sustains manas at the deepest levels is clinging to ālaya as an inner self. And in turn what sustains that is the habit energy regurgitated from ālaya. The passions for selfhood of manas give rise to all sorts of discriminations of "inner" and "outer" perceptions. It is the discriminative consciousness responsible for all sorts of deluded views and actions. Therefore, all views and actions can be returned to manas with its grasping at ālaya as self. If this is undone (self-grasping abandoned) then there can no longer be passions and views. Manas is forever destroyed and replaced with Wisdom of Equality.

I have heard this explanation of how the eight consciousnesses are transformedinto the five wisdoms, it is in Karmapa Rangjung Dorje's Distinguishing Consciousness and Wisdom. It would be very much appreciated if you could manifest also the other four wisdoms, the Discriminating Wisdom and the rest. Then you will realize that there are distinctions between bacteria and elephants,...

Aemilius wrote:I have heard this explanation of how the eight consciousnesses are transformed into the five wisdoms, it is in Karmapa Rangjung Dorje's Distinguishing Consciousness and Wisdom. It would be very much appreciated if you could manifest also the other four wisdoms, the Discriminating Wisdom and the rest. Then you will realize that there are distinctions between bacteria and elephants,...

I'm not familiar with that tradition, but in the system as described in Yogācāra and various Mahāyāna texts the Eight Consciousnesses are transmuted into Four Wisdoms, not five.

Also there is no "Discriminating Wisdom". The wisdom of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is called "Non-discriminating Wisdom", whereas in the Ordinary Being there is the "Discriminative Consciousness" which divides things into all sorts of dualities.

So the "distinctions between bacteria and elephants" are a product of the Discriminative Consciousness belonging to the realm of the Ordinary Being.

The transmutation of the Eight Consciousnesses into Four Wisdoms are as follows:

The Five wisdoms are :Tathata-jnana; wisdom of suchness or wisdom of dharmadhatuAdarsa-jnana; mirror-like wisdomSamata-jnana; wisdom of samenessPratyaveksana-jnana; distinquishing wisdomKrtyanusthana-jnana; accomplishing wisdom

The term " wonderful meditation wisdom" is an unfortunate translation, I would think. Four wisdoms have been mentioned by Zen master Hakuin, there used to be some better translation in his teaching of four wisdoms. Five wisdoms are based on indian sources, Buddhabhumi sutra and the indian commentaries of yogachara school.

Aemilius wrote:The term " wonderful meditation wisdom" is an unfortunate translation, I would think.

I'm better with the Chinese translations anyway, and it is miàoguāncházhì 妙观察智.

妙 = Wonderful观 = Observe察 = Examine智 = Wisdom

观察 together forms a compound word "Observation".

So "Wisdom of Wonderful Observation" is a literal translation of the Chinese.

Anyway, to stay on topic, this "observation" is simply as it is- observation. To observe, just perceiving clearly. Distinguishing on the other hand is splitting experience into parts and comparing to make distinctions, which are always artificial. That is the function of the Discriminative Consciousness of an Ordinary Being which is transmuted into the Wisdom of Equality, for no such distinctions are ultimately valid.

The investigative method of Hīnayāna meditations are simply utilizing Ordinary Beings' habit of creating distinctions to investigate the origins and characteristics of objects in order to arouse distaste and abandonment.

I'll continue the drifting, Hakuin's "Explication of the Four Knowledges of Buddhahood" explains the Four Wisdoms, these four correspond to the wisdoms 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the Five Wisdoms. Thomas Cleary translates the third wisdom( in the four wisdoms scheme) as Subtle Observing Analytic Knowledge.It would be strange if you take away from a Buddha's qualities the power of analytical wisdom !?

Analytical Wisdom, Wonderful Observation.. these are all perfect discernment which does not require distinction making, as that is intellectual grasping.

Therefore this type of Wisdom of a Buddha is called non-discriminative Wisdom. It is non-dual. It is analytical in that it is very thoroughly detailed. Wherever Ordinary Beings create dualities, a Buddha penetrates to the truth within it through perfect discernment, which is always non-dual.

Well, what is non-dual ? Vasubandhu argues that hell-state cannot be real, because a non-dual observer would himself experience the same suffering as the actual inhabitants of hell do! Therefore, is a Buddha's knowledge really non-dual to the full extent ? Does He also experience the dullness and stupidity of the animal-state merely because He knows that animals exist ?

Aemilius wrote:Well, what is non-dual ? Vasubandhu argues that hell-state cannot be real, because a non-dual observer would himself experience the same suffering as the actual inhabitants of hell do! Therefore, is a Buddha's knowledge really non-dual to the full extent ? Does He also experience the dullness and stupidity of the animal-state merely because He knows that animals exist ?

You've gravely misunderstood Vasubandhu's Twenty Verses.

Vasubandhu never says the hell-states cannot be real.

The section talks about pretas who in their suffering states all perceive the same puss rivers, ravenous dogs and crows, hellish guardians, and suffer the same torments such as the guardians intimidating them and not allowing them to drink.

What he says do not exist are those things experienced in hellish realms.

He explains how the hellish guardians are not really existing beings, because if they were then they should feel the same torments of standing red-hot iron ground, and would have a reason for being in hells similar to those who deserve to be there.

However, all those hellish phenomena are indeed experienced by pretas, even though puss rivers, hell guardians, etc. do not actually exist. Which means all the torments of the hell realms (puss rivers, hell guardians, like hell itself) are psychological in nature and are not based on objects existing external to the mind.

All of these illusory objects and experiences are based on duality created in the deluded consciousness which constructs subject-and-object relationships.

A Buddha's wisdom is of course fully non-dual, that's how they break free from the erroneous subject-objects constructs and achieve peace.

Being able to perceive suffering beings and all the illusions they create (based on false duality, such as hell guardians present in hell), does not mean a Buddha will partake in the delusions and suffering.

Being able to perceive beings creating and suffering in their hellish states, does not mean a Buddha is in a hellish state (like a hell guardian) and suffering those illusory torments (as a hell guardian would if they were not merely mental projections of hell beings).

Aemilius wrote:Well, what is non-dual ? Vasubandhu argues that hell-state cannot be real, because a non-dual observer would himself experience the same suffering as the actual inhabitants of hell do! Therefore, is a Buddha's knowledge really non-dual to the full extent ? Does He also experience the dullness and stupidity of the animal-state merely because He knows that animals exist ?

You've gravely misunderstood Vasubandhu's Twenty Verses.

Vasubandhu never says the hell-states cannot be real.

The section talks about pretas who in their suffering states all perceive the same puss rivers, ravenous dogs and crows, hellish guardians, and suffer the same torments such as the guardians intimidating them and not allowing them to drink.

What he says do not exist are those things experienced in hellish realms.

He explains how the hellish guardians are not really existing beings, because if they were then they should feel the same torments of standing red-hot iron ground, and would have a reason for being in hells similar to those who deserve to be there.

However, all those hellish phenomena are indeed experienced by pretas, even though puss rivers, hell guardians, etc. do not actually exist. Which means all the torments of the hell realms (puss rivers, hell guardians, like hell itself) are psychological in nature and are not based on objects existing external to the mind.

All of these illusory objects and experiences are based on duality created in the deluded consciousness which constructs subject-and-object relationships.

A Buddha's wisdom is of course fully non-dual, that's how they break free from the erroneous subject-objects constructs and achieve peace.

Being able to perceive suffering beings and all the illusions they create (based on false duality, such as hell guardians present in hell), does not mean a Buddha will partake in the delusions and suffering.

Being able to perceive beings creating and suffering in their hellish states, does not mean a Buddha is in a hellish state (like a hell guardian) and suffering those illusory torments (as a hell guardian would if they were not merely mental projections of hell beings).

I think there are contradictions in that view. When I read Vasubadhu I thought that he was referring in a convoluted way to what I have said. For me it is difficult to grasp it otherwise. Why should only hells or hell guardians be unreal? Why not also the heaven-state, asura-state, human-state etc? There are prison guards in the prison system of humans, so where is the difficulty? I think the reality of the six realms is equal, they are equally just mind. And I think that an all-knowing person does partake in the suffering of beings in the six realms. Wisdom and compassion are inseparable.